TITLE AND POSITION.

TITLE.

Forming, as it does, an integral portion of the third chapter of
the Greek Daniel, the principal MSS. give the Song, in that place, no
independent title. It falls of course under the general title of the
whole Book, Daniel.

Van Ess in his LXX (Lips. 1835) entitles it Προσευχὴ
Ἀζαρίου καὶ
ὕμνος τῶν
τριῶν, but as he puts this heading in
curved brackets it is possibly merely his own insertion. ‘B’ is the codex
which he is professing to follow in his text; but that MS. is credited
with no such title in Dr. Swete’s Greek Old Testament; nor do Holmes
and Parsons shew any knowledge of it as existing in any of their MSS.

In the Veronese Graeco-Latin Psalter it is headed ’Ὕμνος
τῶν πατέρων
ἡμῶν, and in the Turin Psalter
Ὕμνος
τῶν τριῶν
παιδῶν, which title it inserts again
at v. 57, strangely
regarding that verse as the commencement of a fresh canticle with a
new number, ιβʹ.
Churton (Uncan. and Apocr. Script., p. 391) suggests that the
former title “may have been wrongly
19transferred from Eccles. xliv.“
at the head of which it stands. He also calls it the title in the
Alexandrian Psalter—the Odes, presumably that is, at the end. But
the title to Eccles. xliv. is simply πατέρων
ὕμνος, so that the likelihood of
the transfer, deemed possible by Churton, having taken place is very
small.

In the Odes, at the end of Cod. A, two canticles are extracted from
this piece; the first (Ode IX.) entitled Προσευχὴ
Ἀζαρίου,
the second (Ode X.) Ὕμνος
τῶν πατέρων
ἡμῶν, each corresponding with the name
given to it. In the office of Eastern Lauds the two parts have separate
titles, being assigned to different days of the week (D.C.A.
art. Canticle).

In the Syriac and Arabic versions of Daniel a separate title
is given after v. 23 of
chap. iii., and in the latter after v. 52, according to Churton in his marginal
notes. He also says that “the prayer of the companions of Ananias“
is the Syriac title. The titles on the whole are fairly suited to
their purpose; but the use of the word “children” (παιδῶν) in the common
heading of the Song contemplates the three as of the age indicated in
Daniel i, rather than that in Daniel iii.

POSITION.

Obviously this is not meant for an independent work, since it has no
proper commencement of its
20own. “And they walked” is clearly intended as a continuation
of some foregoing history. Accordingly, its position in the LXX,
Theodotion, Vulgate, and other versions, is immediately after the 23rd
verse of Daniel iii., thus forming a portion of that chapter. This is
clearly its natural and appropriate place. It unites well both at the
beginning and the end with the canonical text, ”Qui se
trouve entrelassée (sic) dans le texte,” as D. Martin
says in the heading of the book in his French version. T. H. Horne,
however (Introd. 1856, II. 936), mentions its “abrupt nature”
as a reason for thinking that the translator did not invent it,
but made use of already existing materials. But the abruptness
is not so apparent to other eyes and ears. Indeed G. Jahn, in his
note on Dan. iii. 24 (Leipzig, 1904), considers
the gap between vv. 23 and
24 in the Massoretic text is filled up satisfactorily in the
LXX and Theodotion only.

By means of this insertion, and the inclusion of what in A.V. are
the first four verses of chap. iv., this chapter is lengthened out in
the Greek and Latin versions to exactly 100 verses.

Bishop Gray’s note (Key to O. T. 1797, p. 608), in which he says
“the Song of the three holy children is not in the Vat. copy of the LXX,”
is certainly a mistake. It is just possible, however, that he may
21have meant that the true LXX version was absent from it. So
Ball somewhat obscurely (p. 310 “the Alex. MS. omits”66This may refer
to the titles he gives from “the Vatican LXX”; but see above, p. 18, as
to the absence of these.), and Bissell (p. 442), though not very
distinctly, suggest a like idea as to its omission from Dan. iii. in A,
and Zöckler in his commentary falls into the same mistake (Munich,
1891, p. 231). It is not unlikely that these writers successively
influenced each other.

E. Philippe’s idea (Vigouroux, Dict. II.
1267a), that this piece was separated from the original book
because ”elle retarde le récit et est en dehors
du but final“ seems unconvincing—as much so as Dereser’s
(quoted in Bissell, p. 444), from whom perhaps it was borrowed—that
“the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem shortened it for convenient use.” An
equally unsatisfying “reason” is that of H. Deane in Daniel, his
Life and Times, p. 70 (pref. 1888). “There is no doubt as to the
antiquity of this addition, but probably on account of the feelings of
hatred the three children express with regard to their enemies, it was
not universally received by the Church.” In the face of many stronger
expressions in the O.T. received without hesitation, this explanation
seems untenable, or at least insufficient. And the same
22may be said of G. Jahn’s theory that some mention of the
singing of the three, contained in the original, was expunged by the
Massoretes as too wonderful and apocryphal.

Much has been made of the omission of this and the other additions
from the original Syriac (e.g. Westcott, quoting Polychronius,
Smith’s D. B., ed. 2. 713b, Bissell, 448), but they are
contained in the Syriac text of Origen’s Hexapla, in the MS. in
the Ambrosian Library at Milan (Kautzsch, I. 172),
published in facsimile by Ceriani. Bugati in his edition of Daniel gives
this Syriac and the LXX text in parallel columns. In Jephet Ibn Ali’s (the
Karaite’s) Arabic commentary on Daniel, translated by D. S. Margoliouth
(Oxf. 1889), no notice is taken of the additions. The commentary was
probably written about a.d. 1000.

Professor Rothstein (Kautzsch, I. 173) compares
the situation of the prayer in ix. 4 sqq., which he deems, like
this one, to have been perhaps a later insertion into the book.

It is beyond question that if this psalm of prayer and praise is to
find a place anywhere in the Book of Daniel, no more suitable position
can be found for it than that which it occupies so well in the Greek. If
it is a digression from the course of the
23original narrative it is very happily placed, since it
accounts satisfactorily for the statement “the king was astonied” in
v. 24 (91). He was
surprised at the voice of praise, instead of the shrieks of pain which
he had expected to produce by the execution of his decree.

AUTHORSHIP.

In the Greek of neither Οʹ nor Θ is there variation sufficient to prove
that the writer differed from the one who translated the rest of the
book. Rather do the indications point to the same hand having been at
work throughout. Comely says of this and its companion pieces, ”Neque in trium pericoparum argumentis quidquam invenitur quo
illas Danielis auctori attribuere prohibeamur“ (Compendium,
Paris, 1889, p. 421). This, like other R. C. writings, holds of course
a brief for their canonicity.

The Prayer, on the surface, claims to be by Azarias; the Song by all
the three. The introductory and intermediate narrative verses are given
as if from the same pen as the rest of Daniel’s history; v. 4 (27) reminds us in its
terms of Daniel iv. 37 (34) very strongly, and, in
part, of ix. 14. In v. 24 (47) the mention of 49
(7 x 7) is paralleled by the symbolic use of the number 7 in iv. 25,
etc. But even if, as is likely, they did not originate with the ostensible
24utterers, still it is quite possible that the hand for
the prayer, the narrative, and the Song may not, in the first instance,
have been identical.

Probably, however, we are intended, by the producer of the piece
in its present shape, to understand that the prayer and the Song are
recorded, even if not originated, by the author of the whole book. If
not genuine parts of Daniel, their parentage has not been assigned to
any named author; and the work must be treated as anonymous, for no clue
has been traced which points to a definite writer.

The putting forward in v. 2
(25) of the second person of the trio, not otherwise
distinguished from his fellows, is remarkable, and not suggestive
of a forgery. There is nothing to shew why he led the prayer, as no
special characteristics are attached to Abed-nego in our knowledge. Most
likely a forger would have put the prayer into the mouth of Shadrach
(Ananias), who always stands first, though the order of the last two is
reversed in the one place in which the three are named in the uncanonical
portion of the chapter. Ewald (Hist. of Israel, E. Tr. Lond.1874,
V. 486) thinks that Azarias is introduced as the eldest, or perhaps the
teacher, of the other two; but this conjecture does not account for the
varying orders of the names of the three in v. 65.

However thick a veil may rest over the author’s name,
it may safely be regarded as certain that he was a Jew, and a Jew who
was well acquainted with the Psalter. But the opinion as to whether he
was of Babylonian, Palestinian, or Alexandrian extraction will depend
in a great measure on the view taken as to the original language,
whether Chaldee, Hebrew, or Greek. Professor Rothstein (p. 174) admits
the possibility of this addition having been made to Daniel before its
translation into Greek. But Dean W. R. W. Stephens (Helps to Study
of P. B., Oxf. n. d., prob. 1901, p. 45) may be taken as representing
what has been the commonest view. He thinks it “probably composed by an
Alexandrine Jew.” On the other hand, Dr. Streane’s remark tells against
this increase of contents having begun at Alexandria. “The tendency to
diffuseness, characteristic of later Judaism . . . operated
much more slightly among Egyptian Jews than with their brethren elsewhere”
(quoted in Dr. Swete’s Introd. to Greek O. T. p. 259).

The assertion has gone the round of the commentators that the Song
proper is a mere expansion of Psalm cxlviii.,
leaving us to infer that it is hardly a work of independent
authorship. Perowne77Psalms, Lond. 1871, II. 462. writes,
26“the earliest imitation of this psalm is the Song of
the Three Children.” And J. H. Blunt, in loc., tells us that
“the hymn in its original shape was obviously an expanded form
of the 148th Psalm.” So even Gaster, “modelled evidently on Ps.
cxlviii.”88Proc. Soc. Bibl. Archaeol. 1895, p. 81.;
while Wheatley99Rational illustrat. of P. B. goes so
far as to say that it is “an exact paraphrase” of that psalm, “and so
like it in words and sense that whoever despiseth this reproacheth that
part of the canonical writings.”1010But J. T. Marshall (Hastings’
D. B. IV. 755), “The hymn is modelled
after Ps. 136, and has equal claim to be considered
poetical.” But though the general idea for calling upon nature to
glorify God is the same, the author of Benedicite is much more
than a mere expander or imitator. Naturally many of the same objects
are mentioned; but while comparison with the LXX version of the psalm
shews some resemblance in word and thought, it shews much more variation
in style, phraseology, and treatment. That the writer, as a Jew, was
acquainted with this psalm can scarcely be doubted; that he consciously
imitated it there is little to shew. Moreover, the use of this psalm
at Lauds in the Ambrosian, the Eastern, and Quignon’s service-books;
together with the Benedicite, would hardly have occurred if the
Church had regarded the latter
27as a mere expansion of the former, and not as a distinct
production.

Whoever the author may have been, he was evidently strictly orthodox,
and quite in sympathy with his three heroes, in whose mouths he placed
this lively, agreeable, and most religious Song. He has added a much
appreciated treasure, at least among Christians, to the ecclesiastical
books; a most serviceable form of utterance for the Church’s praiseful
voice. But the nature of the piece does not afford much scope for display
of the character or personality of the writer. He effaces himself while
extolling devotion to Jehovah, and, if he be Daniel, while recording
the faithfulness of the blessed friends of his youth. What subject more
likely to excite his enthusiastic sympathy? Honour to the martyrs who
endured, praise to the Lord who delivered, it was plainly a pleasure to
him to give.

6This may refer
to the titles he gives from “the Vatican LXX”; but see above, p. 18, as
to the absence of these.